Musk v. Altman Trial Heads to Jury After Closing Arguments

Nine California jurors began deliberating the future of OpenAI on May 14, 2026, after closing arguments in the Musk v. Altman trial concluded in Oakland. The case centers on whether OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman broke a charitable agreement with Elon Musk when they restructured the nonprofit into a for-profit entity — a conversion that left Brockman holding roughly $30 billion in OpenAI shares and former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever with a stake worth approximately $7 billion.

What the Jury Must Decide

According to TechCrunch, jurors are weighing three narrow legal questions rather than the full sweep of testimony heard over three weeks.

The first is breach of charitable trust: did Altman and Brockman violate a specific agreement with Musk to use his donations for a defined charitable purpose? The second is unjust enrichment: did the defendants use those donations to enrich themselves through OpenAI’s for-profit arm? The third targets Microsoft directly — whether the company knew about Musk’s conditions on his donations and played a material role in causing harm.

OpenAI has mounted three affirmative defenses. It argues Musk filed too late under the statute of limitations, that his 2024 filing constitutes unreasonable delay, and that his own conduct renders his claims invalid under the legal doctrine of “unclean hands.” If any of those defenses succeed, Musk’s claims could be dismissed regardless of the underlying merits.

A verdict for Musk could force OpenAI to unwind its 2025 restructuring — the conversion of its for-profit subsidiary into a public benefit corporation — and potentially remove Altman and Brockman from leadership.

Closing Arguments: Credibility on Trial

MIT Technology Review reported that both sides used closing arguments primarily to attack the opposing party’s credibility, with lawyers projecting unflattering photos of Musk and Altman side by side on a courtroom screen.

Musk’s attorney Steven Molo argued that Altman and Brockman broke an explicit promise to keep OpenAI structured as a nonprofit developing AI for humanity’s benefit, and that the for-profit conversion made them “extraordinarily wealthy” at the expense of that mission.

OpenAI’s attorney Sarah Eddy countered that no such promise was ever made. She argued that OpenAI remains a nonprofit at its core even after restructuring, and that Musk’s real motivation is to damage a direct competitor to his own AI company, xAI, which he launched in 2023. Eddy also noted Musk waited until 2024 to file — years after the events he claims harmed him.

As a courtroom flourish, OpenAI produced a golden trophy shaped like a donkey’s rear end — reportedly awarded to an employee who was called a “jackass” by Musk for resisting pressure to accelerate AGI development — as physical evidence of the company’s claimed commitment to safety over speed.

Key Testimony: Sutskever, Nadella, and Altman

The trial’s third week brought a sequence of high-profile witnesses before the jury.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified Monday, followed by former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever. According to Wired, Sutskever disclosed for the first time in court that his ownership stake in OpenAI’s for-profit arm is currently worth approximately $7 billion, making him one of the largest known individual shareholders. He had previously turned down a $6 million annual compensation offer from Google to join OpenAI.

Sutskever testified that he helped gather evidence of Altman’s alleged deception and assisted in drafting the memo that led to Altman’s brief removal as CEO in November 2023. Despite that episode, Sutskever said he acted out of concern for the organization. “I felt a great deal of ownership of OpenAI,” he told the court. “I felt like I put my life into it, and I simply cared for it, and I didn’t want it to be destroyed.” Sutskever left OpenAI in 2024 to found a competing AI lab.

Sam Altman took the stand Tuesday, directly rebutting Musk’s characterization of him as dishonest. Forbes reported that Altman defended his personal investments in companies that do business with OpenAI, testifying he has “always been recused” from any decisions where a conflict could arise.

Conflict-of-Interest Scrutiny Beyond the Courtroom

Altman’s conflict-of-interest claims face pressure from multiple directions simultaneously.

The House Oversight Committee, led by chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY), sent Altman a letter on May 9 requesting documentation on how OpenAI manages potential conflicts stemming from his personal investment portfolio. The letter cited Wall Street Journal reporting that Altman pushed OpenAI to invest $500 million in nuclear fusion company Helion — a company in which Altman has personally invested at least $375 million.

Altman testified he recused himself from OpenAI-Helion deal discussions, but acknowledged he sat on Helion’s board while simultaneously working to secure additional compute power for OpenAI — the type of energy Helion could supply.

Separately, according to Forbes, attorneys general from Florida, Montana, Nebraska, Iowa, West Virginia, and Louisiana wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission raising concerns about Altman’s holdings ahead of OpenAI’s anticipated IPO.

Brockman’s $30 Billion Stake and the Founding Rupture

One of the trial’s most striking disclosures came from OpenAI president Greg Brockman, who acknowledged for the first time that he holds approximately $30 billion in OpenAI shares, according to Wired.

Brockman is one of OpenAI’s original cofounders. He and Sutskever were, in Brockman’s own words, “joined at the hip” — until Sutskever helped orchestrate Altman’s removal in 2023. The two have been estranged since. Brockman also testified earlier in the trial about the 2018 breakup between Musk and the other OpenAI founders, a period central to Musk’s claim that he was deceived about the company’s direction.

The sheer scale of Brockman’s and Sutskever’s stakes has become central to Musk’s unjust enrichment argument — that money he donated to a charitable mission ended up generating billions in personal wealth for the people running the organization.

What This Means

The Musk v. Altman trial is, at its core, a dispute about what OpenAI promised — and to whom. But the implications extend well beyond this courtroom.

If the jury finds for Musk, a subsequent hearing will determine remedies, which could include unwinding OpenAI’s public benefit corporation structure and removing Altman and Brockman. That outcome would inject severe uncertainty into a company currently valued at roughly $300 billion and would complicate Microsoft’s deep integration with OpenAI’s technology stack.

Even a defense verdict leaves OpenAI facing a thicket of regulatory and political pressure. Six state attorneys general have already engaged the SEC. Congressional scrutiny of Altman’s personal investment network is intensifying ahead of a potential IPO. And the trial itself has produced sworn testimony — about Altman’s recusal practices, Brockman’s equity, and Sutskever’s role in the 2023 board coup — that regulators and future plaintiffs can now cite.

The jury’s decision will not resolve those pressures. It will simply determine which legal theory of OpenAI’s founding story prevails.

FAQ

What is Elon Musk suing OpenAI for?

Musk filed suit in 2024 alleging that OpenAI and cofounders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman violated a charitable trust by using his donations to benefit themselves financially rather than to develop AI for humanity’s benefit. He is asking the court to reverse OpenAI’s 2025 conversion into a public benefit corporation and remove Altman and Brockman from leadership.

What could happen if Musk wins the trial?

According to TechCrunch, a verdict for Musk would trigger a separate set of hearings to determine remedies, which could include unwinding OpenAI’s for-profit restructuring. The precise consequences are not yet defined and would depend heavily on the judge’s rulings in those follow-on proceedings.

Why did Ilya Sutskever help remove Sam Altman as CEO in 2023?

Sutskever testified that he helped gather evidence of what he described as Altman’s history of deception and assisted in drafting the memo sent to OpenAI’s board before Altman’s removal. He framed his actions as motivated by concern for the organization, telling the court he “didn’t want it to be destroyed,” per Wired. Altman was reinstated within days after employee pressure, and Sutskever departed OpenAI in 2024 to start his own AI lab.